March 8, 2010

"And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots."

Massa says he was persecuted, and all he did was make a stupid drunken sexual remark at a New Year's Eve party. If it wasn't so bad, don't resign. Man up, or shut up, Massa.

So Massa made a gay jest, and that equals an expulsion offense? The Democrat/Media industrial slander machine is running overtime again...did they run out of new Palin material? And who will have time to write the "Tea Party people are all mentally ill" flurry of stories this week?

I am reminded of the old saying, "Politics ain't bean bag." Or “What have you done for me today?” Charlie Rangel has done a lot for the Speaker, Massa not so much, who do you think is going to take the hit? From a guy not really noted for his Liberal or Democratic leanings…..

I would be rather skeptical of Massa's claims if not for the fact that Charlie Rangel gets kid-glove treatment for far worse behavior. Something is definitely fishy if a bad joke is Massa's primary offense.

If every politician who ever made an off-color remark was to resign immediately, the country would be a lot better off. Anyway, I wish he'd "man up" and stay in DC until they they drag him out kicking and screaming, but that won't do his constituents back home much good. If he's gonna get frozen out, which seems likely, resignation is understandable. I just hope that he hits every talk show, even the late night comedies if they'll have him, and lets people see what even the Dems are now acknowledging are borderline criminal violations of our principles.

Using the Massa standard, Jan Schakowski should resign for calling citizens against health care deplorable, despicable, detestable, and discusting. They were her own constituents at a town hall meeting.

He is manning up! Easy for someone on the sidelines (like me) to call Obama a thug. Another matter for Massa - who can do the boy-king real damage by calling him out - to do so. Massa's just put himself in harm's way.

Now there's a time-honored dodge that used to be a staple explanation of in-the-closet aging prepsters, trying to convince folks that they shouldn't believe what their eyes saw and ears heard (and butt may have felt). Even the dudes in Brokeback Mountain didn't go for that one, I suppose because they weren't products of high-WASP boarding school culture. At least it sounds better than "wide stance."

I'm not sure I get the logic of pushing him out. I get threatening to go public with this, take it to the Ethics Committee, if he doesn't vote yes, but isn't he from a Republican leaning district? Given that and the dim prospects of a Democrat winning his seat, I don't see how this would help the administration.

I don't know how a replacement is selected, but if the Gov. appoints someone, I'm not sure a disgruntled Gov. Patterson will do Obama any favors. The voters probably won't.

Before these allegations BY Massa, the news seemed to spin it as another ethics mess for the Democrats and surely it's worse now.

His allegation may be true, may not, but it seems there were easier ways to get him to vote yes and not hand another seat to the Republicans.

Here's my guess. Massa now has name recognition. If Pelosi doesn't have the votes, she doesn't call for 'a vote.' But lets the whole thing slide until Congress goes on break.

If Pelosi has the votes, however, and this bill passes, Massa will run, again, as an independent. And, he'll probably be back in Congress, as a representative, ahead. Since it will be hard for another candidate to gain his name recognition by November. And, he's already a NO vote. Saying he's still a NO voter. Where's the downside? Pelosi can't pole vault a stick into him at this point in time.

Read the story. It's hilarious. They guy is accused of sexual harassment and resigns. He then claims that he had no idea what the claims actually were until AFTER he resigned and is now surprised by them.

The damage to Massa's reputation and family is done (if it's not true, people will believe it anyway but he can keep his family together, and if he was in the closet, he's not anymore). He doesn't have much left to lose. Why not try to stick it Nancy and Rahm?

I don't get Massa's logic either. He says the Dems want to get rid of him because he'd be a no vote on the bill from h e double toothpicks.

But isn't no vote at all a no vote?

Barry wants this passed in the next 10 days, so there is no chance of replacing him in that time. Reps are not appointed, a special election must be held unless the seat will just stay empty until the next regular election. Hawaii's seat will remain open since Hawaii's election commission doesn't have the money to hold a special election now.

Massa is a crazy story (we obviously are far from the truth at this point), but he may be the Waterloo for Rahm. It is one thing to have this whispered reputation an an f bomb throwing asshole. It is another to visualize the little punk balerina naked in the shower stickinghis finger in his chest and otherwise abusing this congressman, who is then accused of sexual harassment against a male employee. Just what Obama needs. If there is one more weird story in the next week about Obama's administration, health insurance reform is probably dead, if not dead already.

I don't get Massa's logic either. He says the Dems want to get rid of him because he'd be a no vote on the bill from h e double toothpicks.

But isn't no vote at all a no vote

Except in this case, Massa's retirement would bring the house down to 431 members requiring only 216 yes votes for passage. With Massa still there at 432, Pelosi would need to get 217 yes votes (you can't win with a tie. Thus, Massa's retirement gets Pelosi a vote, which is why Massa's story may have merit.

Evidence of Obama using the Chicago way on House members is very damaging. Now, any prior no vote who switches will be accused of being black-mailed in some way by the Administration.

I think Massa's revelation just made it a lot harder for Obama to get the votes.

I aggree that Massa should discover a little more testicular fortitude, but if the charges really are that he made a joke about "fracking" a staff member, everyone should lighten the hell up. And yeah, you do get a slight mulligan if you are drunk. in the real world, a complaint based on this (assuming away any problems with damages) would probably be dismissed.

Speaking of hypocritical and disgusting Republican shills helping the insurance companies screw us even more than they already have...

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

This is such a perfect reason to completely and finally throw this health care nationalization scheme overboard once and for all.Think back over the last year. The Dems have tried to lie, cheat, steal, panic, bribe and intimidate people in order to get their way. They failed despite that lack of principles and their willingness to violate their oaths of office. But now we're supposed to pretend they've hit a "reset" button and are really, really, pinky swear promise doing the right thing this time. Their contempt for our intelligence will be their downfall. It's like we've caught a guy breaking into our house 5 nights in a row and now he shows up with a new hat on. And we're expected to just let him in? No thanks, Barry and Nan. Those scams might work in the shit-for-brains circles in which you travel, but we're a bit brighter than that.

I think Massa's revelation just made it a lot harder for Obama to get the votes.

Only if you assume shame is a deterrent.

I think this vote is, in essence, the Battle of Stalingrad in the Long March through the Institutions. Except the outcome is not known and could still go either way. But the left knows this is the best and final chance for this generation to remake American society along the lines they think are more just and will empower the right sort of people. If they win, the March can continue into other areas, with fierce fighting to be expected, but with their opponent weakening. But if they lose, a rout could ensue, and much of what they achieved in the past 40 years will be put at risk.

Given those stakes, I'm sure Pelosi's leadership team can ruin a few innocent lives and still sleep at night. History is beckoning, doncha know?

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

Yea, I'll remember that the next time I'm injured in a noncontiguous arctic frontier that just became a US state a few years before.

Speaking of hypocritical and disgusting Republican shills helping the insurance companies screw us even more than they already have...

Jeremy, a clue: Insurers love the Senate bill. They want it to pass. They might have an issue with some of the details, but the big picture is, Obama wants to deliver them 31 million new customers, who will be required to buy policies under penalty of fines or imprisonment. Some marketing campaign, eh? Sure, in exchange they have to put up with a few lousy rules. It's already a heavily-regulated business. Now, a few more regs. But the cost of insuring people with pre-existing conditions is nothing compared with the revenue flow from million of new customers, a substantial number of whom are young and healthy and won't be putting much of a drain on their coffers for the first 20 years of paying premiums. Oh, and those who can't afford the premiums? No problem, the taxpayers will cover it!

Yeah, those nasty insurers are really worried! They're pulling out all the stops! That's why you see nothing but TV ads paid for by insurers, trying to rouse the public against this bill. Oh, wait. That was in 1994. This year...crickets.

I'm guessing the New Year eve party story is only a very small part of what Nancy has on Massa. He can own up to this and still maintain some plausible deniability. But if he "mans up" and fights Nancy, she (or Rahm) will have someone send some photos to the National Enquirer and a few others, and there will be no more deniability. If he doesn't man up, it's because he can't.

wv = trapp. What Massa's caught in, with a double "P" and that rhymes with B and that stands for "bastard," and that's what Rahm is. F

The trend this month has been to slander to a quick political death every Democrat that does not bow before Obama's Army. It is ugly. What education does Harvard give its graduates that justifies the way they are treating Governor Patterson and Congressman Massa? Also why do we fall into line with these tactics so easily?

> who will be required to buy policies under penalty of fines or imprisonment. Some marketing campaign, eh? Sure, in exchange they have to put up with a few lousy rules.

I don’t doubt that the insurance companies might think they are coming out ahead, but I am not so sure they will.

Right now the mandate being tossed around is pretty toothless. I mean demanding that a person spends $4,000 on insurance or pay a $1,000 fine is pretty weak medicine. Maybe by the in terrorem effect, they will trick more customers on the rolls, but that remains to be seen.

Second, the other problem is it might be unconstitutional. First, several versions amount to illegal direct taxes. Second, even if not, there is a little precedent called Roe v. Wade, to contend with. If we want to consider Roe anything but judicial fiat, then it stands as an extreme example of the right to control your medical destiny.

So you might end with massive new regulation, and no mandate.

Which is not to say that you are wrong to say that the insurance company sees it as a good thing. But I think if they do, they seriously don’t understand what is being contemplated, here.

Jeremy

Sorry, where is the hypocrisy? There is no hypocrisy in saying that the government should not be handing out free stuff to everyone, and then taking the free stuff.

Sorry, where is the hypocrisy? There is no hypocrisy in saying that the government should not be handing out free stuff to everyone, and then taking the free stuff.

I would add that there is mucho hypocrisy in a politician who votes for socialized medicine as a good thing for his people & then goes to a non-socialized medicine country when he himself is faced with rationing or delay in his care. In fact, I would say, “duh”, if it weren’t so déclassé

Stupak's dozen is a different matter. I was talking about the total yes vote Pelosi needs. She can get 216 if no one switches their vote for the original House vote. However, that is not oging to happen.

I just don't see this bill passing at all. Normally you would think you would have reps looking for cover to switch their votes from No to yes (such as the Senate bill is better). However, in this case we have onyl heard the opposite - yes votes looking for cover to vote no, such as the Stupak 12.

Nothing has changed about this bill since the Scott Brown election. Obama has promised "reconcliliation" but everyone knows (i.e, the House members who voted no) that he can't keep the promise. Moreover, the House members know that Obama is desperate and he [Obama] has no past history of making and keeping promises.

Remember Obama has no experience and this is where it is hurting him. Experience isn't just a skill set, its also a perception of you by others. No one trusts Obama to keep his promise in not fixing the health care bill. Thus, no I predict that this bill never comes to a vote.

But the left knows this is the best and final chance for this generation to remake American society along the lines they think are more just and will empower the right sort of people. If they win, the March can continue into other areas, with fierce fighting to be expected, but with their opponent weakening. But if they lose, a rout could ensue, and much of what they achieved in the past 40 years will be put at risk.

I think you overstate what is going on. Right now the bill is dead. It has been dead since Scott Brown won his election on January 17. And then we aren't even sure if the bill would have ever been passed at that point (no agreement was reached before the Scott Brown election).

I think all of this has been a charade by Obama to place blame for the defeat, which has already occurred, on Congress or Republicans or someone other than himself.

Obama is a total disaster as a President. How can a President propose a budget for 10 years that doesn't ever balance and has record deficits in each year. yet, Obama is doing this?????

I personally don't care for hypocrisy so much as i care for what it says about the system. I would be like, imagine you go into a McDonald's restaurant, and you see a bunch of the staff sitting around and eating Burger King. Now the metaphor doesn't work perfectly, because taste can be a factor, but if you were in that situation, wouldn't you wonder "what do they know that i don't?"

Same thing when Canuckistanis come to america for treatment, especially when they are governnment officials.

And i would add that there is a world of difference between being forced to do something chosing to do it. Chances are the finances of the young Palin forced her to go to Canada. And most ordinary cannuckistanis, have no choice but to get their national medicine, just like most americans can't really choose to send their children to private schools. But when Fidel Castro was sick, he chose to fly in doctors from another country.

Not sure how this is supposed to be sexual harassment, unless there is much more to the story. There is no quid pro quo that I can see, and as for hostile work environment…does that work when you’re not at work? Also, did his staff member rat him out just for that? He may not inspire much loyalty (again, we only have his side, maybe it was worse/repeated).

Bizarre story, but I’m for anyone that wants to talk outside of school. After all Rangel did, this sounds like quite a little to be run out for. And the guy resigned! So whatever.

The real question is, when is congress as a whole going to man up and tell Obama to stop insisting on holiday deadlines for all these votes. I wish they’d all tell him to stuff it when he asks them to ruin Easter/Halloween/Christmas/St. Patty’s Day/Arbor Day/Memorial Day/Whatever the heck holiday he picks next.

But an interesting trial balloon floated by Ron Pollack of Families USA in a recent article in Politico points out that a reconciliation bill amending the health care bill could actually be voted on before the House votes to accept that health care bill.

That’s right. When it comes to enacting laws and then later amending those laws, it doesn’t matter in what order Congress passes bills. All that matters is the order in which the president signs those bills into law. As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former. So the House and Senate could, in theory, vote on a conference report amending the Senate health care bill before the House actually has to take the tougher vote to accept the Senate bill.

No matter whether the House votes on reconciliation or the Senate bill first, the Speaker can ensure that the health care bill is signed into law before reconciliation. (The dirty little secret of Congress is that even if the House votes to pass the Senate health care bill tomorrow, the Speaker has unilateral power to hold that bill at her desk until January 3 of next year before sending it to the President and starting the 10-day Constitutional veto clock.)

Technically, Sloan has a point, whether garage likes it or not, and it's the thing I keep coming back to.

With their supermajorities, the Demos should have been able to pass this mess on the first try. They blame obstructionist Republicans (please, do so, all the way to November), but they should have had it passed by now. To a certain extent, Barry may be putting on a show to keep the hard core Lefties from staying home entirely, as the November sweepstakes could be an electoral Armageddon for his last two years.

Massa's story vaguely reminded of one Larry Craig might use. either way it won't play out well for the Dems. If they have a long complaint file on them then the question will be "why did they wait?" If they don't have more evidence the its He said/he said.

I am amused by the repeated line from those to the left of center on this blog to the effect that it doesn't take 60 votes. 1) I think that simplifies the process a bit much2) If it was that "friggin'" easy then why did wait till now? (And please don't tell me you were waiting to get Republican support.)

As long as the president signs the health care bill 30 seconds before he signs the reconciliation bill, the latter can amend or repeal any provisions in the former.

Still the House would have to pass another bill that would go to the senate to be "reconciled" and then have it go back to the house for final passage. That is basically a totally new bill. What if the Senate cannot "reconcile" no funding for abortion language?

Still the House would have to pass another bill that would go to the senate to be "reconciled" and then have it go back to the house for final passage. That is basically a totally new bill. What if the Senate cannot "reconcile" no funding for abortion language?

Quite often I long for a huge asteroid to land smack dab square in the middle of Washington DC....when Congress is in session.

Government does not fund abortion now-so why is it Stupak that has to compromise, and if this bill is not a vehicle to single payer, universal health care, why in the hell are they doing that double billing process to make sure that abortion is funded?

More:To address Nelson's concerns over federal funds, Boxer and Murray agreed to a plan requiring insurers to collect separate payments from subscribers to cover abortions. Here's how the newly proposed segregation system would work: insurers that wanted to cover abortion would be required to collect two payments from every enrollee. One would go into a general fund, one would go into a fund that exclusively covers abortion. Every enrollee in a plan covering abortion—male or female, regardless of whether they wanted abortion coverage—would need to pay into both funds, the idea being the separate payment is not a rider but rather a standard part of the premium that must be paid separately. Insurers would be barred from advertising the breakdown of payments: in promotional materials, one would only see the lump sum premium payment advertised. Enrollees would learn of the breakdown after they signed up "as part the summary of benefits ... at the time of enrollment," according to the amendment.

Because the way the bill(s) are written would allow government funding of abortion through the backdoor....so to speak.

By allowing the government to subsidize....(big word meaning that they would pay for the insurance coverage) of some people and that ABORTION is covered under the MANDATORY coverages this means that the government (meaning me, you and other taxpayers) will be shelling out money for abortion.

Just because they are trying to hide it or sneak it in the backdoor, still doesn't mean that it isn't government funding of abortion.

Seen a lot of speculation that there was something more than a stupid joke by a drunk at a party with a bunch of other drunks. Although, Massa has a pretty erratic history, panicking and bailing doesn't seem beyond possibility. OTOH, would Hoyer really order Massa and his entire staff to the ethics committee over something as stupid as a drunk telling a joke? Wouldn't the line form behind about half of Congress if that was the case?

Almost gives the impression something unknown to the public is lurking.

Probably going to be a lot more impact for Rahm - Massa has basically dealt him a death blow here. He's gone from being Skippy's "enforcer" to "naked guy yelling in the shower". A dollar says that SNL already has the outlines for something this weekend on it - and they probably won't play very nice about it, considering the way they've played Rahm previously.

With this, and Axelrod's meltdown in the Times this weekend, we could be seeing some turnover in White House personnel fairly soon. One thing Skippy doesn't waste time on is underbussing political liabilities like these two are becoming.

TW - deglc - the noise Massa made realizing he was in the presence of "mini-Rahm"

Why is that so hard to understand...and why do so many demand the right to make the choice for a woman?

Should that woman have that choice [to terminate] for a 39 week baby; or about a 37 week baby? Maybe its okay for a 34 week baby, or a 32 week baby or a 26 week baby, or a 20 week baby? When does that baby get its own rights? - to live regardless of how the mother feels about it. It's a tough question to answer. At the very least we can make sure not a penny of tax dollars goes towards the effort. Why is it so hard for the Senators to adopt the Stupak language? To them the special interest lobby of NARAL is more important that the 30 million of uninsured (most of whom don't vote or donate to campaigns). Who is really playing politics?

The "abortion coverage" provided via the bill being presented is purely voluntary, and up to the indicidual when he or she selects their specific coverage.

That doesn't meant shit, and you know it.

If it is voluntarily chosen by someone and THEN is subisidized by tax payer dollars......which are by the way NOT voluntarily contributed.....then it is government subsidy of abortion.

If they have changed it to being voluntary to NOT buy coverage for abortion or other reproductive issues like pregnancy...that must be new. The previous proposal was that the 'government' or exchange or whatever you want to call it option would be MANDATED to cover those things.

If they want to have a paid for, not by taxpayer, rider to the insurance policy for abortion, that would be a different thing.

But they don't want that. The government is trying to slide in abortion coverage and universal socialized medicine through underhanded means.

Every other bill has been subject to the Hyde amendment except for this Senate Bill which it was dropped from and replaced by this double billing. [ which was partially dreamed up by Patty Murray and is part of the Nelson Amendment.]

Then why didn't Linda Tripp file a grievance against the POTUS? That Devil With A Blue Dress was getting special favors--extra presidential kneepad time. Oh srsly.

It's because the laws don't apply in DC. Most of the employment laws and regulations there don't.

Special consideration didn't figure in to the situation at my workplace either.

The only situation we know about so far did not happen at work.

The Massa situation is so ugly, so Chicago, so thug. If that's how they treat their friends, I will never vote Democrat ever again. They're a bunch of unthinking, unfree Pelosibots.

They have totally nullified the election results of Massa's constituents. I will never brook hearing anything about stolen elections ever again.

Rotten dirty low down thugs.

They don't need to do this to anyone else...the mere threat will force the others to fall into line.

Rahm is a closet, or shower, homo. If he's approaching someone he knows to be a homo, while he himself is nekkid in the showers and beyond the reach of cameras and microphones, he's a homo. No straight man would do that.

kentuckyliz,"The only situation we know about so far did not happen at work."

It doesn't need to occur at work. There just needs to be the appearance of favoritism, or someone's reasonable belief that there is favoritism, for sexual harassment to be an issue. I neglected to say earlier that if someone is offended by something someone else says or does, that has a sexual connotation, then sexual harassment is an issue. It doesn't have to be "actual" sexual harassment, just someone's perception.

the problem that the liberals on this issue cannot get around is that Roe v. Wade says that this whole enterprise is dubious constitutionally. its becoming a cliche to say mockingly, "get your laws off of my body (except for obamacare, I'm okay with that)." You can either believe in a right to control your medical destiny, or not, you can believe we have a right to choose our medical destiny, or not. But liberals are trying to have it both ways.

The last time they did that, was when they insisted that the federal government could insist on requiring gender equality for all entities recieving federal aid, but then allowing them to exclude military recruiters for don't-ask-don't-tell. if memory serves, you guys lost something like 9-0. In politics it might be possible to have it both ways but when these things are tested in court, even the activists will want it to adhere to some kind of sensible principle.